I'm Finished!

[PolarBear]

Interesting responses on the issue of "completing" a set.

Here's my perspective based on coin collecting for 20+ years, which was my main collecting pursuit as a kid. I no longer collect (or even have any) coins. I moved on about 8 years ago when it became more like an "industry" than a hobby.

T206 is much like the early large cents in coin collecting. Ted would be the William Sheldon of the card hobby. That's one of the reasons I'm facinated by his research. It's like watching Sheldon unveil the complicated secrets of the early large cent die pairs, but we're watching it real time, not reading a book written 60 years ago. But that's another observation.

Back to "completing" a set.

Collecting T206 mirrors the evolution of coin collecting in many ways. The first thing I noticed about collecting T206 was that it's collected as a "date set". That is, one of each date (subject) without regard to mintmark (back).

Coin collecting was like that until mintmark research in the 1890's changed the perception of what constituted a "set". i.e. Philadelphia Mint, New Orleans Mint, Dahlonega Mint, San Francisco Mint, Carson City Mint, Charolotte Mint, etc. The date on the coin became of less importance in many cases than the mintmark.

In my mind, T206 is either a superset of all dates/mints or 16 different "sets" representing the 16 (I'm convinced T213-1 is a T206 issue and I'm not including the Cobb back) different "mints" that issued them. Rarely does anyone collect coins as a "date set" any longer and I think the future of T206 collecting is headed toward specialization in back (mintmark) collections.

Also, one of the first things I thought about the T206 set is that the Magie and Doyle errors shouldn't be counted toward completness. These are varieties like the 1922 "no d" cent and 1955 "double die" cent. Sure, they're collected and command high prices, but no one thinks you need a 1922 "no d" cent or a 1955 "double die" to have a complete collection of Lincoln cents.

Also, based on the reading I've done so far, I'm not convinced the Wagner or Plank was ever "issued" with a Piedmont back. Printed sure, but were they ever actually put into Piedmont packs and placed in "circulation"? In coin collecting, it's generally recognized that unless a coin was issued into circulation, it isn't required for a complete set. i.e. the 1838-O half dollar or 1895 dollar. Sure, you'll need a Wagner and Plank if you're doing a complete Sweet Caporal "set" but otherwise not. Same reasoning for Demmitt STL and O'Hara STL. They're only needed to complete a Polar Bear set.

I'm convinced of a couple of things. First, someone really needs to write a book on the T206 "set" that incorporates Ted and Scot's research. Second, I believe T206 collecting will evolve over the next few years into T206-1 through T206-16 sets, and be collected primarily that way, which includes recognizing T213-1 as a T206 issue.

So, is Scott's set "complete"? No, but he only needs 4 cards to complete his "date set", not 6. Still it's a huge accomplishment. He could always evolve into a Piedmont set, dispensing with those four as well, which aren't needed for a "complete" Piedmont set, based on my theory anyway. :-)